http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9755-1703
Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeApparently different recommendations for p12 in the paper
Posted by mtalaei on 19 Dec 2022 at 14:12 GMT
I got confused with the recommended p12 in the 2nd paragraph of the discussion and the conclusions:
2nd paragraph of discussion: "Perhaps the most widely applicable are the results of simulations, that suggest values of the order p12 ≈ 5×10−6 lead to robust inference over a range of scenarios, but the adoption of sensitivity analysis will help evaluate robustness of inference to changes in prior parameter values."
In summary: "The simulations here (Fig (4)) suggest that p12 = 5×10−5 provides a reasonable balance between power and false positive calls..."
It is clear that sensitivity analysis is required at least for key results, but if we need a single number I assume that the one in the conclusion is the final recommendation: p12 = 5×10−5.
RE: Apparently different recommendations for p12 in the paper
ChrisWallace replied to mtalaei on 22 Dec 2022 at 15:35 GMT
This is a mistake. The 5 x 10-6 is correct. I will get in touch with the journal to ask them to fix this.